The End Of The “Wars On The Cheap” For The United States4.84
out of 5
based on 25 ratings.
25 user reviews.

The End Of The “Wars On The Cheap” For The United States

Donate

Loading the player...

If you’re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn’t be possible without your help: PayPal: southfront@list.ru or via: http://southfront.org/donate/or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront, BTC: 13iYp9CDYZwgSnFXNtpEKgRRqaoxHPr2MH, BCH: 1NE49pQW8yCegnFCMvKuhLUnuxvTnxNUhf, ETH: 0x962b312a9d41620f9aa0d286f9d7f8b1769bfae6

Now that the Neocons have hamstrung Trump, and with Trump’s planned impeachment and removal from office still in the future, the world must deal with the dangerous decline of the USA-led power bloc, because the Neocons are back in power and will do anything to reverse this trend. It is obvious that the only “solution” that the Neocons see is to trigger another war. So the question is: “Whom will they strike?”

If the Neocons are out of touch with reality, then everything is possible, even nuking Russia and China. While not dismissing the Neocons’ capacity for violence, it is equally pointless to analyze clearly irrational scenarios, given that modern deterrence theories assume “rational actors” and not madmen running amok.

Assuming a modicum of rational thinking remains in Washington, DC, if the Neocons launch some extreme operation, somebody in the corridors of power will find the courage to prevent it, as Admiral Fallon did with his “Not on my watch!” comment which possibly prevented an attack on Iran in 2007. But the question remains: where could the USA-led power bloc strike next?

The Usual Scenario

The habitual modus operandi is: subvert a weak country, accuse it of human rights violations, impose economic sanctions, trigger riots and militarily intervene to defend “democracy”, “freedom” and “self-determination.” That’s the political recipe. Then there is “the American way of war,” i.e., the way US commanders fight.

During the Cold War, the Pentagon focused on fighting a large conventional war against the Soviet Union that could escalate into nuclear war. Nuclear aspects aside, such a war’s conventional dimension is “heavy”: large formations, lots of armor and artillery. Immense logistical efforts on both sides are required, which would consequently engender deep-strikes on second echelon forces, supply dumps and strategic infrastructure, and a defense in depth in key sectors. The battlefield would be hundreds of kilometers deep on both sides of the front line. Military defenses would be prepared in two, possibly three, echelons. In the Cold War, the Soviet 2nd strategic echelon in Europe was in the Ukraine! — which inherited huge ammo dumps from Soviet times, so there has been no shortage of weapons on either side to wage the Ukrainian civil war. With the Soviet Union’s collapse, this threat rapidly disappeared. Ultimately, the Gulf War provided the US military and NATO one last, big, conventional war, but it soon became clear to US strategists that the “heavy war” era was over and that armored brigades weren’t the Pentagon’s most useful tool.

So US strategists, mostly from Special Operation Forces, developed “war on the cheap.” First, the CIA funds, arms and trains local insurgents; next, US Special Forces embed with the insurgents as front line soldiers who direct close support aircraft to strike enemy forces; finally, enough aircraft are deployed in and around the combat zone to support 24 hour combat operations. The objective is to provide overwhelming firepower advantage to friendly insurgents.

US and “coalition” forces then advance until they come under fire and, unless they rapidly prevail, they call in airstrikes which result in a huge BOOM!!! – followed by the enemy’s annihilation. The process repeats as necessary for easy, cheap victories over outgunned enemies. The strategy is enhanced by providing the insurgents with better gear (anti-tank weapons, night vision, communications, etc.) and bringing in Pentagon or allied forces, or mercenaries, to defeat really tough targets.

While many in the US military were deeply skeptical, Special Forces dominance and the temporary success of “war on the cheap” in Afghanistan made it immensely popular with US politicians and policy advocates. Moreover, this “cheap” warfare resulted in very few American casualties, with a high degree of “plausible deniability” should something go wrong. The alphabet soup agencies loved it.

But the early euphoria about US invincibility overlooked three very risky assumptions about “war on the cheap”:

First, it required a deeply demoralized enemy who felt that resistance to the USA was futile, because even if the US forces were initially limited in size and capabilities, the Americans could always bring in more forces.

Second, it assumed total battlefield air superiority by the US, since Americans prefer not to provide close air support when they can be shot down by enemy forces.

Third, it required local insurgents who physically occupy and control territory.

But none of these assumptions are necessarily true, and even better said, the USA-led power bloc has run out of countries in which these assumptions still apply.

Let’s take a closer look.

Hezbollah, Lebanon 2006

This war involved Israel, not the USA, but it nicely illustrates the principle. While superior Hezbollah tactics and battlefield preparation played important roles, and Russian anti-tank weapons permitted Hezbollah to destroy the most advanced Israeli tanks, the most important result was that a small, weak Arab force showed no fear whatsoever against the supposedly invincible Israeli military.

British reporter, Robert Fisk, was the first person to detect the implications of this change. Fisk observed that in the past Arabs were intimidated by Israeli military power, that if the IDF crossed the Lebanese border, for instance, that Palestinians fled to Beirut. However, beginning with the 2006 Israeli assault on southern Lebanon all of that changed. A small, “outgunned” Arab force was not afraid to stand its ground and fight back against the IDF.

It was a huge change. What Hezbollah achieved in 2006 is now repeated in Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iraq and elsewhere. The fear of the “sole superpower” is gone, replaced by a burning desire to settle the score with the USA-led power bloc and its occupation forces.

Hezbollah also proved another very important thing: the winning strategy against a superior enemy is not to protect yourself against his attacks, but to deny him a lucrative target. Put simply: “a cammo tent is better than a bunker.” The more academic way to put it is: “don’t contest your enemy’s superiority – make it irrelevant.”

In retrospect, the most formidable weapon of the USA-led power bloc was not the nuclear bomb or the aircraft carrier, but a huge public relations machine which for decades convinced the world of US invincibility, superior weapons, better trained soldiers, more advanced tactics, etc. But this is total nonsense – the US military is nothing like the glorified image projected to the world! When did the US last win a war against a capable adversary? The Japanese in WWII?

Russian Operation, Syria 2015

The Russian operation in Syria was neither a case of “the Russians are coming” nor “the war is over.” The Russians sent a very small force, This force did not so much defeat Daesh as change the war’s political context. The Russians made American intervention much harder politically, and also kept them from waging “war on the cheap” in Syria.

The Russians deployed to Syria without the capabilities which could deny American use of Syrian air space. Even after the Turks shot down the Russian SU-24, the Russians only deployed enough air-defenses and air superiority fighters to protect themselves from a similar Turkish attack. Even today, if the Pentagon decided to take control of Syrian airspace, the Russians don’t have enough air defenses or combat aircraft to deny Syrian airspace to the Americans. Such an attack would come with very real American political and military costs, true enough, but the realities of modern warfare are such that the tiny Russian air contingent of 33 combat aircraft (of which only 19 can actually contest the Syrian airspace: 4 SU-30s, 6 SU-34s, 9 Su-27s) and an unknown number of S-300/S-400/S-1 Pantsir batteries cannot defeat the combined air power of CENTCOM and NATO.

The problem for the Americans is a matrix of risks, including Russian military capabilities, but also the political risks of establishing a no-fly zone over Syria. Not only would that further escalate the totally illegal US intervention, it would require a sustained effort to suppress Syrian, and potentially Russian, air defenses; that is something the White House will not do right now, especially when the results of such a risky operation remain unclear. Consequently, the Americans only struck sporadically, with minimal results.

Even worse, the Russians are turning the tables on the Americans and providing the Syrians with close air support, artillery controllers and heavy artillery systems, including multiple-rocket launchers and heavy flamethrowers, all of which are giving the firepower advantage to the Syrians. Paradoxically, the Russians are now fighting a “war on the cheap” while denying this option to the Americans and their allies.

Good Terrorists, aka “FSA”, Syria 2017

The Free Syrian Army’s main weakness is that it doesn’t physically exist! Sure, there are plenty of FSA Syrian exiles in Turkey and elsewhere; there are also many Daesh/al-Qaeda types who try hard to look like FSA; and there are scattered armed groups in Syria who would like to be “the FSA.” But the FSA was always a purely political abstraction. This virtual FSA provided many useful things to the Americans: a propaganda narrative, a pious pretext to send in the CIA, a fig leaf to conceal that Uncle Sam was militarily allied with al-Qaeda and Daesh, and a political ideal to try to unify the world against Assad’s government. But the FSA never provided “boots on the ground” like everybody else: Daesh and al-Qaeda, the Syrians, the Iranians, Hezbollah, the Turks and the Kurds. But since the Takfiris were “officially” the USA’s enemy, the US was limited in the support given to these Wahabi forces. The Syrians, Iranians and Hezbollah were demonized, so it was impossible to work with them. That left the Turks, who had terrible relations with the USA after the US-backed coup against Erdogan, and the Kurds, who were not eager to fight and die deep inside Syria and who were regarded with great hostility by Ankara. As the war progressed the terrible reality hit the Americans: they had no “boots on the ground” with which to embed their Special Ops or to support.

A case in point is the American failure in the al-Tanf region near the Jordanian border. The Americans and Jordanians invaded this desert region hoping to sever the lines of communications between the Syrians and Iraqis. Instead, the Syrians cut the Americans off and reached the border first, rendering the American presence useless. It appears that the Americans have given up on al-Tanf, and will withdraw and redeploy elsewhere in Syria.

So Who Is Next – Venezuela?

History shows that the Americans have always had problem with their local “allies”. Some were pretty good (South Koreans), others less so (Contras), but US use of local forces always has a risk: the locals often have their own agenda and soon realize that if they depend on the Americans, the Americans also depend on them. Additionally, Americans are not well known for having good “multi-cultural sensitivity and expertise.” They are typically not very knowledgeable about their operating environment, meaning that US intelligence usually becomes aware of problems way too late to fix them (fancy technology can’t substitute for solid, expert human intelligence). The US failure in Syria is an excellent example of this.

Having identified some of the weaknesses of the US “war on the cheap” approach, let’s examine a vulnerability matrix for potential target countries:

Notes: “demoralized enemy” and “air superiority” are guesstimates; “boots on the ground” means an indigenous, combat force in-country (not foreign troops) capable of seizing and holding ground, and not just small insurgent groups or political opposition.

By these criteria, the only candidate for US intervention is Venezuela, where successful US intervention would require a realistic exit strategy. But the US is already overextended and cannot afford to bog down in an unwinnable war. While the Venezuelan opposition could provide “boots on the ground,” the Venezuelan pro-American forces lack the capabilities of the regular armed forces or the Leftist guerrilla groups who tolerated the Chavez-Maduro rule, but who retained their weapons “just in case.” As for terrain, while Caracas might appear relatively “easy” to seize, the rest of the country is more difficult and dangerous. As regards staying power, while Americans like quick victories, Latin American guerrillas have repeatedly proven that they can fight for decades. Therefore, while the USA is probably capable of invading and ravaging Venezuela, it is likely incapable of imposing a new regime and controlling the country.

Conclusion – Afghanistan 2001-2017

Afghanistan is often called the “graveyard of empires,” and Afghanistan may well become the graveyard of the “war on the cheap” doctrine, which is paradoxical since this doctrine was initially applied in Afghanistan with apparent success. Remember the US Special Forces on horseback, directing B-52 airstrikes against retreating Afghan forces? Sixteen years later, the Afghan war has dramatically changed and 90% of US casualties come from IEDs, all the efforts at a political settlement have failed, and victory and withdrawal appear completely impossible. The fact that the USA has now accused Russia of “arming the Taliban” is a powerful indicator of the USA-led power bloc’s desperation. Eventually, the Americans will leave, totally defeated, but for the time being all they will admit to is: “not winning.”

Here’s the dilemma: with the end of the Cold War and Post Cold War, complete US military reform is long overdue, but also politically impossible. The present US armed forces are the bizarre result of the Cold War, the “war on the cheap” years and failed military interventions. In theory, the US should adopt a new national security strategy and a military strategy that supports the national security strategy, and then develop a military doctrine which would produce a force modernization plan incorporating all aspects of military reform, from training to force planning to deployment. It took the Russians over a decade to do this. It will take the Americans at least as long. Right now, such far reaching reform seems years away. Garden variety jingoism (“We’re number one!!”) and deep denial rule the day. As in Russia, it will probably take a truly catastrophic embarrassment (like the first Russian war in Chechnya) to force the Pentagon to face reality. Until then, the ability of US forces to impose their domination on countries which refuse to surrender to threats and sanctions will continue to degrade.

So is Venezuela next? Hopefully not. But if so, it will be one very big mess with much destroyed and little achieved. The USA-led power bloc has long been punching above its weight. Prevailing against Iran or North Korea is clearly beyond current US military capabilities. Attacking Russia or China would be suicidal. Which leaves the Ukraine. The US might possibly send some weapons to the junta in Kiev and organize training camps in the western Ukraine. But that’s about it. None of that will make any real difference anyway, except further aggravate the Russians.

The Russians have succeeded in turning the course of the civil war in Syria with what was an extremely small, if highly skilled, task force. Now, for the 2nd time, President Putin has announced a major withdrawal of Russian forces. In contrast, the thoroughly defeated US has not only claimed the credit for defeating ISIS for itself, but has ostentatiously failed to make any announcement about a withdrawal of its own, completely illegal and mostly useless, forces from Syria. Will they ever learn from their own mistakes?

The era of “wars on the cheap” is over. The world is a different place than it was. The USA has to adapt to this reality, if it wants to retain some level of credibility; but right now it does not appear anybody in Washington, DC is willing to admit this. As a result, the era of major US military interventions might well be coming to an end, even if there will always be some small country to “triumphantly” beat up.

And then there is the petroyuan. China is not only exerting major pressure on Saudi to get on board — by buying increasingly less Saudi oil, but is slyly inking deals all over the ME and North Africa, for loans in yuan, for example, and is paying for oil in yuan to a number of countries. This assault on the petrodollar will eventually be as big an impediment as any to “war on the cheap.” Put it together with the description above and it is a perfect storm for the Pentagon.

Wegan

Totally agree, the weakening of the dollar will prompt a different strategy. So far what we see in the US is just panic. Losing market share in weapon sales and losing market share in GDP, which is totally normal, nations are growing and some of the stuff they used to buy or not buy are being produced domestically.
On the political front Russia and China are making some very strong ties by offering alternatives to being submissive to one country. That alternative is cooperation. It’s not about the strongest, it’s about the most adaptable. They should read Darwin.

Malinda

Gℴogle pays every one 97 dollars per/hr to complete few services online .. Work Some few hours daily and live happy greater time with your family … any individual can also join this simple job…on Thursday I got a latest Land Rover Defender after just earning $9908 this four weeks .no doubt it is the easiest job however you can now not forgive yourself if you do not take a look at this.!xw802r:➻➻➻ http://GoogleNetJobsHelpFinanceReportsOnline/online/easytasks… ♥o♥♥♥c♥♥♥o♥♥b♥♥♥w♥o♥♥n♥g♥♥♥v♥r♥f♥m♥♥♥c♥♥t♥♥a♥♥♥q♥v♥♥♥c♥x♥♥v♥i♥p♥m♥f♥o:::::!ee951z:lnsm

Merijn

Wilma buzz off with your Google……. get a real job……

Merijn

Maybe another important thing is that people got a bit tired of Anglozionists & their followers……

nekroluma

oil will be an irrelevant boat anchor come 2025 when it is no longer possible to exist outside on planet earth, as rothschilds usaf “owns the weather by 2025”

charlesjannuzi

Petro-yuan. Yawn. They then take all that money and buy US government debt. LOL.

alejoeisabel

Venezuela better accelerate its defenses against a US/Colombian/Brazilian invasion. They might even throw in Mexico and Spain. For the Anglo/Zionist Empire, Venezuela is a slave revolt that must be suppressed.

John

Brasil abhors warfare. They do like intervention at all and have a long history of this. The US will be going in alone if they try. My two cents. A good day to you.

Hide Behind

Would take 40 pages to refute all of the assumptions of this article, the first assumption is of an impeached Trump, Impeaching Trump in no way will weaken US Foreign policy aims.
AND just because US at present does not militarily and economicly control of all Syria, the facts are that they and Kurds control a huge chunk of it. Even if they give Turkey and Israel extended borders they control Energy fields, and the breadbasket of old Syria.
SYRIA IS BANKRUPT AND ALL BUT 2 of worlds CURRENCY NATIONS SUPPORT THEM.
WInning in Afghanistan, how many years has it been that Europe has had pipelines for crude and natural gas on the cheap?
HOW LONG NOW HAS Europe had access to inexpensive Libyan oil? How many years now has France mainly but All of Europe had secure supplies of carbon based and uranium on the cheap since France gained contro of 3 poor African mations.
RUSSIA IS DAMNED NEAR LANDLOCKED and without Euro market access for its gas etc they have no strong exports to all back on.
Russia did not defeat US, only helped Syria regain enough land to keep the name Syria.
SYRIA was and still is part of destruction planning from before either Bush Presidency, and Syria will never have ability to thwart Euro Israel and NATO US presence in ME power structure.
Trumps administration has turned all but Damascus dwellers into one of his”Shi. Hole Nations” AND NO MATTER THE WORD GAMES THERE WILL NEVER BE A WAY TO PUT THAT HUMPTY DUMPTY SYRIAN BACK TOGETHER AGAIN. NEVER.
There are over 28 African nations now under US Euro control.
EVERY Central and South American nation State has US installed governments except Venezuela.
Not enough room here to explain all forces including the people themselves that destroy the Chavista Revolution

John

Hello Hide. Not a bad rebuttal but, the Occidentals are on the way out in Syria. As you said, 40 pages of reasons why but, it is not worth covering here, or anyplace else for that matter. So, I respectfully disagree on many of your points.

nekroluma

How will you digest? with an intestine full of dicamba mold spores hmmm? the US has been a jew club member military extortion camp since dec 23rd 1913. Codependant parasitism is a plan only for oblivion. The only ones who survive past 2025 if any survive the usaf 24/7 gmo spraying called weather modification, will grow their own organic based food in shallow in ground sealed enclaves for a long time. There will never be military again after 2025, it will not be tollerated as being far too inneficient and far too ignorant to accomodate.

Attrition47

A mixture of contradictory and irrelevant claims, the US empire has always dominated Africa by controlling the oceans; physical occupation means nothing. the Russia-China combine is unbeatable and if the US imperialists try to reform the military forces which are being shown to be an emperor’s new clothes, they will collapse for years. The US is trying to exchange informal for formal empire before another country does what Ooh-aah Hezbollah did to the fucking bastard zionist filth in 2006. Clearly the Russians are acting as an antifascist catalyst but China is there too, quietly reducing its dependence on dollar purchases. Where’s that Maxie Keiser when you need him?

Hide Behind

I respectively submit that it is not true US always dominated Africa, and in fact was a late comer to the geopolitical conditions in Africa
It was not just weak piss poor nations but piss poor administrations and some who partially abandoned those nations thinking years without opposition was a sign of complete acceptance of Euro rulers.
France and Belgium’s partnership was very strong throughout Africs, beginning with Morroco. ALGIERS. CHAD AND CLEAR THROUGH SAHARA TO CENTRAL AFRICA.
SO MUCH so that the nations coinage was French and Belgium and it’s banks also were controlled by those nations
All of Europe had their fingers in robbery of African resources. Uranium stolen from Africa was the fuels needed by all Euro Nuclear power plants.
At one Stage, where US proved old powers were weak was Ruhwanda where US Spec Ops Began defeating French and Neterlands Spec Ops trained African malitias and robbers
Today France and Dutch oil interest have given up on old dreams of a ZTrans-Sahara oil and gas pipelines to Mediteranean sea.. Once where foreign currency reigned now US dollars rain on loyal patsies.
European nations could not afford to fully rule over all their conquered people’s and taking a lesson of Britain’s control over India’s banking and economy by training locals let then keep home military forces.
Just a tidbit, but notice what France received in Africa for years of loyal ads kissing of US war MAKING and slaughtering. France helped destroy Libya and Hillary State and US military gave them invasion rights to three African nations.

Attrition47

I meant in the post-1945 world when the US took over from the British empire. By controlling the oceans and dictating when and where oil tankers sailed, the costs of importing oil (or the cost of exporting it) the US had the same stranglehold on the terms of trade formerly enjoyed by the British. Britain and the Euros flourished as protectorates when there was lots of reconstruction necessary after 1945 but only on US terms. Notice how much the US is willing to spend to exclude Russian energy exports from Europe?

nekroluma

which claims are conradictory? or is that the largest word you feel comfortable with and so you use it for anything that exposes rothschild jew club member scams.

Wait and see. Your assumptions will not survive the reality of the next ten years.

Tak Lai

BIGGEST MISTAKE ON THE GRAND CHESS BOARD WAS WHEN THE US ALLOWED RUSSIA AND CHINA TO FORM AN UNBEATABLE STRATEGIC ALLIANCE DURING THE UKRAINIAN CRISIS. DUMP WITS OR WHAT. LIKE AFGHANISTAN, SYRIA IS UNFORTUNATELY A CENTRAL CHESS PIECE IN A ROAD BLOCK NOW FOR US LOSER PLANS.

Hide Behind

I have but one more point to make, and it has to do with Trump presidency.
Removal of Trump would mean Pence as President, and he is a religious born again Zionist nut case.
A super patriot that by gaining power, under His and 80+ millions of voting Christian Zionist Bastardized interpretation of God what the world has seen of US military power would look lime a cheap public 4th of July celebration in comparison. Only reason Trump came to office was he chose the one man who held those 80 million fanatics confidence; recognition of Jerusalem as Israel capital was of Pence powerfull bloc.
All those so called well armed Patriot Militia men are f’n fanatical Trump supporters and those elected do not know what would happen if they try to remove Trump.
Remember, just because a President is impeached does not mean automatic removal from office, Clinton and Jackson were impeached but remained.
Foreign talking heads talk big but most do not fully understand US culture, we are bloody Bastard who hide behind our deliberate ignorance all traits of National Guilt.

Smith Ricky

Trump is not the problem here, we need to remove zios from controlling Washington.

Sinbad2

The US was slaughtering innocent civilians long before Zionism even existed.
Read up on the million Filipinos the US slaughtered, because they wanted independence.

Attrition47

True, the US boss class uses the myth of the Jewish lobby to obscure the zionist proxy and its cloak of respectability.

Smith Ricky

Zionisnm was in place since the 17th century maybe even earlier. Read up on Rothschild 😉

Zionism
a movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the
development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. It
was established as a political organization in 1897 under Theodor Herzl,
and was later led by Chaim Weizmann.

Blaming the genocide of North American Indians on the Jews doesn’t fool anyone.
Attacking Fiji in 1840, because they didn’t want Americans in their country?
China 1859, again because the Chinese didn’t want Americans in their country?
Korea 1872, the US shelled them and blockaded Korean ports, to force the Koreans to trade with American companies.
The US has been attacking and pillaging other nations throughout its short history.
Some Jews are real nasty pieces of work, but the USA makes them look like angels.

Joao Alfaiate

I wonder if your 80 million number for religious nutjobs is correct. About 20% of the US population goes to church on any given Sunday and about half of those are Pence types. So that would yield about 32 million Evangelicals, not counting the crazies who watch the 700 Club, etc. Maybe these folks are punching above their weight? I lived in Texas for 27 years and heard lots about the influence of the “religious right” but sure didn’t meet very many of them.

Smith Ricky

Rip to USA

Ryan Glantz

So when did southfront become a mouthpiece for the deepstate propaganda?
Trump isn’t going anywhere. And there will be no more wars on behalf of the USA, despite how much you all want to beat the war drums. Nuclear exchange is not an option- I’ve stated this on here many times.
There are positive ET factions that will simply not permit a nuclear exchange to happen.
Call me whatever you want, just watch and see. I don’t care if you think I”m crazy for stating the fact that there are Extraterrestrials involved in our world who have our best interest in mind. Now, Turkey on the other hand, has been influenced by negative ET’s for some time, and it shows. USA has had both negative and positive influences in the past– looks like USA is cleaning house big time now though.
Once again to all those who are triggered by this info- you can take your opinion and shove it up your ass. Time will prove the statements presented above are true. Count on it.

Joao Alfaiate

“Nuclear exchange is not an option” Well, if you’re wrong about that I doubt many of us will be around to hold you to account. And if we are around I suspect we’ll have other things to do.

Ryan Glantz

Haha, I enjoy your levity :D

Joao Alfaiate

Thanks!!!

Wegan

Russia, Syria, Iran and hezbollah are pooling resources together. Their combined presence in the middle east is overwhelming the Americans and the Terrorists who had initially the upper hand because of their numbers and weapons. There is an undeniable math component to this.

The RISH (Russia,Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, read riche like in french) are united and cohesive. They coordinate military, political, media and economic action. You can’t say the same about AISEQ (America, Israel, Saudi arabia, Emirate and Qatar ).They Disavowed one of their own (Qatar) and some of the groups they support have different ideology and keep fighting each other. Worse is the payment that gets stopped at some points and the mercenaries will either join another group or just stop fighting and just cocoon around a territory (Idlib, Hama, ghouta etc.. ). Cocooning in a territory makes them easy targets.

The more time passes the more coherent and organized the RISH become. And the More time passes the more the AISEQ loses ground and significance. And there is no coming back from that, it is really too late.

Even a US invasion will fail and will be short lived, they just can’t make any significant inroad in Syria. By the time they get there Syria might be whole again. Just look at how a small force like the Kurds when well entrenched stopped the Turks from making any significant progress. Imagine now what RISH will do.

javier

“signifigant inroads” ? Didn’t they seize most the oil wells. That had to be way up there on their list of priorities.

charlesjannuzi

No, they didn’t.

charlesjannuzi

Hezbollah is not a country. Russia and Iran are fossil-fuel exporting rivals who have decided to cooperate to try and check the rogue state, US, in the Middle East. They probably decided that a bit too late. The real time to put it in check would have been to stop the US from invading Iraq. But Russia wasn’t in any position to do that then. And they benefited greatly from the period of artificially high oil prices due to that invasion. As did Venezuela.

outer_rl

Why would they have stopped America invading Iraq? Saddam used to be a US ally. The invasion got rid of a strategic opponent of Iran.

Nod

The invasion prevented the euro currency priced oil for sale…….

alejoeisabel

The writing is on the wall. US Imperialism will reassert its self proclaimed “Monroe Doctrine”, hegemony over the Western Hemisphere. The US will destroy any former vassal state, and return them to their historical state of vassalage. This includes Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, Bolivia and Ecuador. This will be known as putting its Imperialist house in order. If Colombia becomes a US surrogate and attacks Venezuela, that would invalidate the FARC PEACE ACCORDS. Every revolutionary military organization is learning from Hezbollah. One would hope that a Catholic equivalent to Hezbollah would emerge.

Attrition47

It didn’t start with Ooh-aah Hezbollah, the Westheer invented the empty battlefield during the Battle of the Somme.

Nigel Maund

The financial crash may well have started. This will impact severely on the US owing to the massive difference between the rich and poor that has grown inexorably since the 1990’s. Real wage growth has resulted in a 50% fall in real incomes based on purchasing power. The release of the FISA document, which is but the tip of a very large iceberg of colossal crime and corruption leading back to the Rothschild’s and Rockefellers banking, oil, pharmaceutical and military industrial complex empires, the odds are that the US is headed for more serious false flag events, an increasing police state and more censorship and loss of liberties. If the US populace do not address the issues of the Deep State and their controllers; i.e. the Anglo – American Zionist Bankster Corporatist Cabal, then the US will be the next USSSA under the control of a demonic surveillance – militarised fascist State. As the SF video points out, the US are losing the plot in every respect and their power (financial, military, economic and social) is in severe decline. trump can’t save this situation as he came to power too late to stop the extreme rot. He’s trying amidst intense opposition for the Cabal and their toady MSM. However, they’re now desperate and will do anything to remain in power. Their latest action s to destroy all cryptocurrencies they do not control.

Venezuela with is huge oil resources, will be a place where China and Russia will assist in turning any US intervention into another Afghanistan or Vietnam for them. They’ll bleed physically and financially to their ultimate ruin.

Mikronos

War on the cheap is only cheap with US lives. Other than that they are neither cheap nor successful. Leaving them under’trained’ and or ‘underfunded’ can see them go somewhere America an’t bide them going. It is still very much ‘a tiger by the tail’ proposition. American’t afford to let go and it’s getting pricier to hang on. But, thankfully, it’s mostly only money.

Sinbad2

If you want to stop the American war of terror, destroy the US dollar.
If everybody went out and bought a single ounce of silver, it would do more to stop the evil empire than any gun.

VGA

“Now that the Neocons have hamstrung Trump, and with Trump’s planned impeachment and removal from office still in the future”

it’s good to see the idiocy in the first sentence so I don’t lose my time.

Dr. Ronald Cutburth

SHARED. THANKS TO SOUTH FRONT AND THE SAKER

Wolfgang Wolf

still the usual saker analysis… tried to put some light into the darkness, but still believes in glorious superiority of the us forces over syrian skies, maybe? did he ever think about the hidden capabilities of the russian military? electronic warfare? long distance standoff-weapons? anti-awacs missiles? subs with kalibrs? stop dreaming… US military power is just existing on glossy-paper presentations..

Attrition47

I wonder how many times the US tried to get the Russians to unmask some of their AA goodies?

Wolfgang Wolf

the russians read sun-tsu (the art of war) better than the ziocons: “let the opponent be in the dark about your real capabilities”
thats total contrast to the american bragging about high-tec-bullshit… and that pisses them off))))

Attrition47

Much of the boasting is for the same purpose as nazi V weapon propaganda in 1944, an encouragement to the Germans that the overwhelming odds against them were not insuperable. It’s a bit like working class Americans voting for the Democrats and hoping that they will stop shitting on the workers for once….

Red Pilled ThoughtCrimes

Brilliant

Igor Dano

Neocons yes.
But impeach Trump? How? After publishing the 4 pages memo?
And after more published info about Dems, FBI, DOJ, hast to be published?
Author is miles away from reality, even though I wish he would be right.

Did you watch the video? He doesn’t have the ability to win decisively against any of those. Except they didn’t talk about the footballer Moreno.

Jonathan Cohen

They only said it wouldn’t be cheap, besides, ISIS is almost defeated already and might even be defeated by doing nothing, so the difficulty runs the gamut.

charlesjannuzi

Good lord. When did they ever do anything on the cheap? With them it’s just very expensive vs. unbelievably expensive (you know, like the cost of fuel for the US military during its occupation of Iraq).

spoint

The purpose of the defense budget is to spend it.

outer_rl

The world has got stronger. The age of imperialism is over. International cooperation is the only way to keep the peace.

While the Congress for a Syrian National Dialogue has not solved the conflict, it has swept away the minor groups who were pretending to represent the Syrian People for the benefit of the Western powers. It has also cleared the way for a consensus, adopted by the representatives of almost all Syrians, and decided the creation of a Constituent Commission. The basis for peace has been established, but without the Western powers.

For the first time since the beginning of the conflict, in 2011, a conference uniting 1,500 Syrian delegates, of all origins, confessions, and almost all political opinions was held in Sotchi – the Congress for a Syrian National Dialogue.

This initiative by President Vladimir Putin was placed under the high patronage of Iran, Russia and Turkey [1]. It was denigrated, even rejected, for no reason, by the other powers implicated in the war. De facto, the idea of an inter-Syrian conference excluded them from the peace process.

Does the Congress represent the minorities?

Much pressure was brought to bear by the partisans of the war to ensure that the Congress would not be representative of the Syrian People. In the minds of foreigners, including Russia, Syria shelters minorities who aspire to autonomy – supposedly the case of the Kurds and the Druzes. However, this view of the situation ignores what the Syrian project has actually been for several thousands of years.

This Asian territory, which reaches from the West of the Euphrates to the Sinaï, is inhabited by a multitude of minorities – the Kurds and the Druzes of course, but also the Turkmen, the Chechens, the Georgians, the Bedouins, the Armenians, etc., etc. These ethnic minorities are themselves composed of religious minorities with antique confessions, such as the Alaouites (who were Christianised, then Islamised), Christians of all sorts of churches, and the Sunni Muslims. This territory is situated between the five seas, in such a way as to constitute an obligatory waypoint, not only for traders, but also for conquerors. Throughout their history, these peoples have adhered to a common project – Syria. They learned that they needed one another in order to resist all sorts of invaders. They mingled everywhere, to the point that at the start of the 20th century, no minority identified with any particular region. It took British and French colonisation to attempt to make Palestine a Jewish state, Lebanon Christian, and Jordan Muslim. Throughout this vast area, only what is now the Syrian Arab Republic still maintained, just ten years ago, this profound social diversity.

When they were preparing the Congress in Sotchi, the Russian diplomats at first believed, spontaneously, that it would be enough to federalise the country according to its minorities in order to bring peace. In its first version, the Conference was to be called the « Congress for the People of Syria ». Discussing this subject with various participants, they came to understand that the history of Syria is different from that of Russia, and that, geographically, it is not possible to federalise this diversified land. But on the contrary, the Israëlis pursued the idea of separating the Kurds from the Arabs, while France entertained the notion of distinguishing Christians and Muslims, etc. By doing so, they restricted their action to the continuity of the colonial Sykes-Picot-Sozonov agreements.

At their instigation, the Kurds of the PYD boycotted the Congress. But, contrary to a preconceived idea widely held in the West, while the PYD is the only exclusively Kurdish political party, it is nonetheless a minority amongst the Kurds of Syria. In the national culture, all ethnic parties are illegal – the PYD is an exception.

In any case, the people present at the Congress were either elected by direct universal suffrage, the leaders of associations, or recognised personalities. The invitations had been sent as widely as possible in order to leave no-one out.

Does the Congress represent political opinions?

Every power implicated in the war sponsors the Syrians who represent their interests. At first, Turkey and Saudi Arabia organised and financed the Syrian National Council in Istanbul. Then, with the entry of Qatar, it became the National Coalition for Syrian Revolution and Opposition Forces. As events evolved, several groups appeared, each one instrumentalised by a foreign party.

One group refused in advance to participate in the Congress in Sotchi – the High Negotiations Committee which, contrary to what its title may suggest, refuses all negotiation. It is based in Riyadh and represents Saudi interests (which, within the Syrian population, are supposed to correspond to the wishes of the Bedouin tribes of the Syria-Iraq-Saudi desert). Although it maintains its democratic rhetoric as long as the cameras are running, it promotes desert values – tribalism, a unique religion, and a refusal of History.

The absence of the High Negotiations Committee illustrates the impossibility of extending the values of its Bedouin minority to all of Syria. However, just as there once existed an alliance between the Saudi Kingdom and the Syrian Arab Republic, coexistence is still possible. Indeed, this is why the Ba’athist Riad Hijab, after having been turned by the French secret services, accepted to preside the High Committee. He had been Governor, Minister, then President of the Council of Ministers (and not Prime Minister, as the Western medias stated, knowing nothing of the Syrian Presidential system). From the same tribe as the King of Arabia, he had already tried this solution before the war, and had been fully satisfied.

A second group physically boycotted the Congress, but made this decision known only when they arrived in Sotchi – they were represented by a third party. Composed mainly of certain Muslim Brothers and some Turkmens, it was sponsored by Turkey. Ankara, which hesitated to make itself too obvious, encouraged the group to denounce the partiality of the organisers – of which it was a member – so that it would be absent from the Congress, but gave its authority to the Turkish diplomats.

Its members pretended that the logo of the Congress included the flag of the Syrian Arab Republic and excluded their own (the flag of French colonisation which had remained in force at the beginning of independence). By doing so, they demonstrated the corner into which they had painted themselves – by assimilating the Syrian flag with the Ba’ath party, and by promoting the flag of colonisation, they demonstrated their contempt for the heroes of the independence and their rallying with foreign occupation. In reality, this has little importance, since they bowed to the power that was paying them – Turkey- and then, without leaving the airport, took a flight back to Istanbul.

The representatives of almost the Syrian factions, with the exception of the High Negotiations Committee (pro-Saudi) and the PYD (pro-French), adopted the Final Declaration and the Constituent Commission.

Did the Congress note the inter-Syrian agreements?

Certainly No, but Yes. The 12-point Final Declaration does not include anything new, but has been signed by all the Syrian factions except the PYD and the High Negotiations Committee, which were absent [2]. Delegates from the exterior opposition heckled Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs Sergey Lavrov during his opening speech. However, having made fools of themselves with their infantile behaviour in front of Western cameras, they adopted the Declaration.

Even if we imagined that the two absent groups represented huge numbers of people, the Congress represented at least 90 % of Syrians, which completely overturns the diplomatic equation. The United States, the United Kingdom and France, although they ridiculed this initiative, can not ignore the consensus it has established.

For the last six years, the Syrian factions have been talking in vain, in Geneva, Vienna, Astana and Sotchi. Their failure is due exclusively to the existence of a hidden plan, successively upheld by the Obama administration and by the administration of the UNO – the total and unconditional surrender of the Syrian Arab Republic and the accession to power by the Muslim Brotherhood under the protection of NATO [3].

The main points of the Feltman Plan

– the sovereignty of the Syrian People will be abolished;

– the Constitution will be repealed;

– the President will be dismissed (but a Vice-President will remain in charge of formal functions) ;

– the People’s Assembly will be dissolved ;

– at least 120 leaders will be considered as guilty and banned from any political function (this probably refers to the list of people sanctioned by the European Union) ;

– the Direction of Military Intelligence, the Direction of Political Security and the Direction of General Security will be deprived of their leaders or dissolved;

– « political prisoners » will be freed and the Anti-terrorist Courts will be abrogated;

– the Hezbollah and the Guardians of the Revolution must withdraw – then and only then will the international community fight terrorism.

In a period of 2 to 3 weeks, an « Organ of government transition » will be constituted and will handle all political, executive, legislative and judiciary powers. It will include;

– 2/5 representatives of the Syrian Arab Republic including members of the loyalist opposition,

– 2/5 representatives of the non-loyalist opposition,

– and 1/5 of personalities from civil society chosen by a representative of the Secretary General of the UNO.

None of the points which figure in this plan were adopted by the Sotchi Congress.

Besides this, the Congress decided the creation of a Constituent Commission composed of 150 delegates nominated by third parties from Ankara, Moscow and Teheran.

The special representative of the Secretary General of the UNO, Stefan De Mistura, is applauded by the delegates, representing almost all Syrians, when he recognized the Final Declaration and the Constituent Commission.

Will the Congress affect the Geneva negotiations?

Hoping to sabotage the peace process, France organised a conference against President el-Assad on 23 January in Paris. It was based on the reports of the UN mission relative to chemical weapons in order to accuse Bachar el-Assad and prevent him from presenting himself for a vote by his fellow citizens. This may be resumed as follows – yes to democracy, but without el-Assad [4]. Let’s remember that the UN Mission had refused to verify on site the elements that had been gathered, and that the Security Council had rejected their reports [5].

Let us note that Turkey was not satisfied with representing a delegation which it sent back to Istanbul. Adept of the use of double language and in extremis 180° changes of position, it participated in the Paris conference and co-organised the Congress in Sotchi.

For the Sotchi consensus to have an impact on the ground, it would have to be endorsed by the UNO, which explains the manœuvres implemented to keep the Organisation out of the process.

But, completely unexpectedly, the special representative of the Secretary General of the UNO, Staffan de Mistura, came to Sotchi. He recognised the legitimacy of the Congress and gave the UN blessing to the Constituent Commission. Unless he changes his mind, this is a decisive advance for the implementation of the el-Assad plan of 12 December 2012, adopted by the international community as Resolution 2254 of the Security Council [6]. As a result, it is also a heavy defeat for the N° 2 of the United Nations , Jeffrey Feltman, who has been working in secret for six years (perhaps even 13 years in other positions) to oblige the Syrian Arab Republic to accept unconditional capitulation.

What are the diplomatic consequences of the Sotchi Congress?

The powers that belittled the Sotchi Congress because they were afraid it would validate the central role of Russia and its Turkish and Iranian allies have lost. No-one until now had been able to unite so many personalities representative of the Syrian People, and no-one had managed to force the adoption of a document common to groups from the interior and the exterior. Yes, Russia and its allies are now centre-stage, and the United States, the United Kingdom, France and Saudi Arabia have excluded themselves.

Saudi Arabia and France are the great losers of this operation. The High Negotiations Committee, which was the only instance of the Syrian opposition in Geneva, are now competing with the consensus of practically all Syrians. The PYD, which France had managed to present as a representative of the Syrian Kurds, has been revealed as just one formation amongst many others, representing nothing other than the weapons it is offered by the Pentagon.

Thierry Meyssan

Translation

Pete Kimberley

[1] “Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks at a plenary meeting of the Syrian National Dialogue Congress”, Voltaire Network, 30 January 2018.

[2] “Final statement of the Congress of the Syrian national dialogue”, Voltaire Network, 30 January 2018.

Post note the twin island state of Trinidad and Tobago just 11 miles off the Venezuelan main land..The prime minister of the country publically stated that that he was asked to participate in an invasion of Venezuela which he responded no…apparently some country wanted to use the twin island state as a huge aircraft carrier and staging ground…poor Americans

US problems in Syria have nothing to do with any failure of intelligence, which told it the Syrians, Russians, Iranians , Hezbollah, and assorted militia are fighting hard and well and the illegal US war on Syria was failing. Where did US intel fail question mark.